Moral and Ethical Dilemma in the ase of Spaulding v Zimmerman Case Study

Moral and Ethical Dilemma in the ase of Spaulding v Zimmerman - Case Study Example The Law Council of Australia has established rules for model conduct of lawyers, however, these tend to revolve around a client-centered approach which is inimical to the practice of law in an ethical manner, rather it tends to be centered around better earning and protecting the client at any cost. Such a client-centered approach makes lawyers amoral and indifferent to maintain ethical standards or morality in the practice of law, thereby engaging in role-differentiated behavior that ignores moral considerations in the case of clients, which would be relevant and applicable in the lawyer’s own life.  Wasserstrom argues that while such an approach may be useful in criminal cases in ensuring that all clients get a fair chance in court, irrespective of the lawyer’s personal convictions in that relevant area, it is not applicable on a wider basis to all cases. Positivist philosophy also separates law and morals, so that a lawyer is not necessarily required to make a mora l decision, rather he/she is expected to ensure that the client’s best interests are served as far as possible within the framework of the law. In the instant case of Spaulding v Zimmerman, the issue that arises is the need to disclose potentially damaging information mandated from an ethical standpoint. Lawyers are to work in the best interests of their clients, yet they are also considered officers of the Court who must serve the cause of fairness, equity and justice. A lawyer has a paramount duty to the Court to pursue the course of justice, which shapes the kind of society that we live in. Allowing individuals to escape with wrongdoing is not in the interests of justice or fairness to all men. Therefore, in the instant case, the professional responsibility of the lawyer would have mandated the disclosure of knowledge that could be inimical to the Plaintiff in the long run, especially since the Defendants were morally in the wrong, to have caused bodily harm to the Plainti ff.